Is 1.3 crop factor the ultimate for use with....

[Corinto47]

In an interview with Canon CEO back in August or so before the 5D
was announced. That's where they said the 1Ds2's replacement would
likely be 22MP whenever that occurs.

That's about the 1DsII replacement,
not about the 1DIIn replacement, ...
quite a difference, ...

Carpe diem.

--
Corinto

I read that interview too,....and what Hellashot said is basically
true. There was a second interview with a top Canon sales rep. who
inferred the same things..

Lots of people read that,..apparently you didn't.. ]=-

JP

Yes, lots of people read that,
about the 1Ds2's replacement.

OK.

But the 1Ds2 is already a FF with 16.7 MP. Yes?

And the replacement of this 1Ds2 may be a FF 22 MP as many people did read about. Right?

And now this thread seems to be about the 1DII or 1DIIn and the the 1.3 crop sensor. Yes? Or no? This is another body. Yes?

So what is APPARENTLY WRONG HERE????????

Did I miss something?

Carpe diem.
--
Corinto

 

[Kendunn]

That they both would be so dang good no one could tell the difference in real world applications, so I guess the 1.3 would cost less and be a better bargin, offer more DOF for those shooting landscapes but the lenses would not be as wide (something landscape people like), the FF would offer less DOF for headshot shooters, offer wider angles, and cost more, just need to know which you need.

 

[Skip M]

That's simply not true on the 5D.

Even my 70-200/2.8L IS has noticeable falloff shooting wide open at
200mm on my 5D. My 200/1.8L has more. There is no way around
aperture vignetting and the "cosine fourth" law for large apertures.

-joseph

I'm showing very little falloff at the edges with my 5D and 70-200 f2.8L IS, in fact, I'd say it's pretty imperceptable:
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900706
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[PicOne]

I'm not sure I'd agree here, or how this can be stated
unequivocally.. Which would appear better?

an 8x10 print made from a 12mp 5D shot at 65mm setting on a L Zoom
(pick one).

an 8x10 print also made from a 5D, shot at the 50mm mark on the
same L zoom from the same distance, and then cropped to be what a
1.3 sensor would yield (ie. achieving "all else being equal").

One would be inclined to say the 65mm shot would be the best since
it uses the higher resolution of the larger sensor.

Is this true, IF both shots still have at least uninterpolated 300 ppi at the given print size? Could you notice a difference in print quality between a shot that has eg native 360 ppi vs. a shot that has native 300 ppi?

The corner issues you mention might be an issue. Here's the way I
look at it. If the corners are OOF anyway, case closed. However,
if they are important, you have a tradeoff.

With the smaller sensor, you have a larger enlargement for the same
print size. In essence, this puts a higher stress on the lens.

Maybe, but see my point above.. If you don't print at a size that requires more MPs out of the camera to keep a 300 ppi uninterpolated print, then are they wasted pixels on a FF and the only factor then becomes softer corners?

Another way to look at it is to say the cropping effectively
reduces the lp/mm of the lens at a particular MTF by the crop
factor (1.3). So it comes down to whether or not the corners are
already 1.3x lower on full-frame than they are on 1.3 crop.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[joebloe]

I've seen more than that, but it's certainly just a contrast/processing thing.

My point is that falloff is there and always has been and always will be, at least to the point where the image gets to the sensor.

-joseph

That's simply not true on the 5D.

Even my 70-200/2.8L IS has noticeable falloff shooting wide open at
200mm on my 5D. My 200/1.8L has more. There is no way around
aperture vignetting and the "cosine fourth" law for large apertures.

-joseph

I'm showing very little falloff at the edges with my 5D and 70-200
f2.8L IS, in fact, I'd say it's pretty imperceptable:
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900706
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

--
Canon.

 

[Lee Jay]

Is this true, IF both shots still have at least uninterpolated 300
ppi at the given print size? Could you notice a difference in
print quality between a shot that has eg native 360 ppi vs. a shot
that has native 300 ppi?

If the printer is the limit, then probably not.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[PicOne]

If you'd be so inclined, could be interesting.

Take a shot at 65mm with the 5D at say f/5.6
Take same shot at 50mm with the 5D.

Crop out the central area from the 50mm FL shot that measures about 3480x2317 pixels and resample up (bicubic smoother) to match the size of the native 65mm shot (4368x2912). Should be roughly the same scene in the final result if the 1.3 crop factor is valid.

See which shot's corner 100% crops look nicer. Test requires that eventual corner subject be what's in focus obviously. Test wouldn't mean too much, but could be informative for some.

Is this true, IF both shots still have at least uninterpolated 300
ppi at the given print size? Could you notice a difference in
print quality between a shot that has eg native 360 ppi vs. a shot
that has native 300 ppi?

If the printer is the limit, then probably not.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Lee Jay]

If you'd be so inclined, could be interesting.

Take a shot at 65mm with the 5D at say f/5.6
Take same shot at 50mm with the 5D.

Here's a sample with the 24-105 at 35mm and 28mm at f11. I'll redo it at f5.6 if you like.



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Lee Jay]

Here it is at f5.6. There might be some DOF issues here so you'll have to look past those.



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[PicOne]

Clearly the 5D's corners then appear to be much better than folks have been going on about. Although I'm not sure why there is a somewhat noticeable overall exposure value / contrast difference between the 2 zoom settings? Nonetheless the 5D and the 24-105 look pretty good to me, even in these corners.

 

[Lee Jay]

Clearly the 5D's corners then appear to be much better than folks
have been going on about.

It's lens dependent. The 24-105 is quite excellent in the corners at all f-stops. The 17-40L is pretty soft at f8 and down.

Although I'm not sure why there is a
somewhat noticeable overall exposure value / contrast difference
between the 2 zoom settings?

Light falloff. I didn't correct for it here.

Nonetheless the 5D and the 24-105
look pretty good to me, even in these corners.

Indeed.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[joebloe]

It doesn't surprise me that when high-quality lenses are used as they were designed to be used, they work fine ....

-joseph

Nonetheless the 5D and the 24-105
look pretty good to me, even in these corners.

Indeed.

--
Canon.

 

[T3]

Well given that the size of 1.3x puts it between APS and FF, yes, the 1.3x sensor can offer an excellent compromise between the two, in terms of sensor real estate, quality, and price. I'm looking forward to seeing what Canon does with their 1.3x sensor format. They have a huge pool of users who use the 1.3x sensor, due to the success of the 1D and 1D MKII, so I think they will definitely carry on with it in some shape or form.

current lenses? We hear so much about the soft corners and light
fall off even with L lenses on FF digital and of course the fact
that you limit the view a great deal for landscape with 1.6 crop
factor could it be that the 1.3 crop factor is the "REAL" standard
this is needed to get the most out of todays lenses? I believe
that the 1DMK11 series is a camera that paves the way for the uber
digital camera. Use the 1.3 crop factor, bump it up to 18 MP's and
seal off the sensor so no dust can accumulate. Put this in a 5D
weather resistant size body. If either Nikon or Canon does this
there will be no competition. This camera will be "The One".

Jimmy

 

[James L Wilson]

Sorry, I have/had the 1DsMk2 and the 5d, and am not experiencing losses at the corners/edges. Perhaps you have a bad copy of the camera or lens.

--
Jim - Boca Raton, FL. http://www.416-1100.com

 

[James L Wilson]

You are exactly correct.
FF is here and gaining ground.
Any talk of a 1.1factor imager is absurd.

--
Jim - Boca Raton, FL. http://www.416-1100.com

 

[James L Wilson]

No, Leica is dealing with, its own financial problems and imager cost, and having to by sensors from 3rd parties; Nikon also buys imagers from 3rd parties, as they do not make sensors. Canon designs and fabricates their own sensors for their pro level digital SLR's.

--
Jim - Boca Raton, FL. http://www.416-1100.com

 

[James L Wilson]

The 1.3 will eventually go to FF. It is just a matter of time, for manufacturing costs to come into line with anticipated users.
--
Jim - Boca Raton, FL. http://www.416-1100.com

 

[T3]

Canon has already said it's 1.3x sensor line has ended, which is
why the sensor wasn't touched when the 1D2N was put out.

The 1D2N's sensor wasn't "touched" because the "N" was released well before the 1D2 was to be replaced with a completely new body and subsequent new sensor. The "N" was merely Canon's opportunity to do a running upgrade on the existing 1D2 before its product (and sensor) lifecycle was up. I wouldn't read too much into it.

Canon's got a huge 1.3x usership base, due to the huge success of their 1D and 1D MKII 1.3x bodies, so I strongly suspect that Canon will continue to offer a body that will meet the needs and preferences of these current and prior 1D/1D MKII 1.3x users.

 

[joebloe]

This is just spectacularly (and humorously) wrong.

-joseph

Lenses can be designed to partially compensate for this with
aspherical lens elements, which straightens the light path at the
edges somewhat.

--
Canon.

 

[T3]

The 1.3 will eventually go to FF. It is just a matter of time, for
manufacturing costs to come into line with anticipated users.

Maybe so, but I see Canon potentially offering FF sensors with an internal 1.3x crop. This could allow the sensor to produce a larger RAW file at full sensor size, while delivering a smaller RAW file in 1.3x crop mode, while allowing 1D/1D MKII users to get the 1.3x crop that they've been accustomed to. Some people may not see much point in a 1.3x crop, but others do. Plus, even as FF sensors do decrease, so too will 1.3x crop sensors. I see a next generation 1-series FF body possibly coming out at around $5000 or so, but a 1.3x PJ body could probably be made available for around $4000, or less. That would give Canon a very diverse line-up to cover various price points and user profiles: $5000-5500 flagship high speed high resolution FF 1Ds MKIII, $4000 1.3x high speed mid-resolution pro PJ body, $3000 economical FF 5D, $1500 prosumer APS 30D. They need a body that squarely targets existing 1D MKII users, in price and performance. And I'm not sure they can, or are willing, to offer that as a FF body for $4000, when they can offer it as a 1.3x body while still preserving the higher price point for their flagship FF body.